Kolkata Court February 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Balai Chand Manna Vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT143(HC),92CWN999
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be termed to be of very recent origin as the doctrine had a well-laid foundation long prior to the decision of the Hi-trees case, where however the concept was re-stated as a recognised doctrine of law. Reference in this context may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Surajmull reported in 1880 ILR 5 Cal. 669 and the subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court 25 years later in the case of Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State reported in 1905 ILR 29 Bombay 580.2. So far as Indian Courts are concerned, there seems to be a steady refinement on this branch of law, since the decision in the case of Anglo-Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 718. In a later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in : [1979]118ITR326(SC) the Supreme Court observed:'That the doctrine of promissory estoppel is a princ...
Sm. Binapani Hatui and anr. Vs. Asok Kumar Hatui
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT1(HC),92CWN900
G.N. Ray, J.1. This revisional application is heard as a contested application. The learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party has entered appearance and has contested the application by filing affidavit-in-opposition.2. The revisional application is directed against Order No. 13, dated 14-9-87 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 67 of 1987. By the impugned order the learned Assistant District Judge has allowed an application for injunction Under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the plaintiff opposite party for restraining the petitioner, who is defendant No. 1 in the said Title Suit, from proceeding further with the Misc. Case pending in the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Serampur for maintenance of the defendant and her minor child, the petitioner No. 2 in this revisional application.3. It appears from the plaint of the said suit that the plaintiff opp...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shree Hanuman Steel Traders
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT47(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. This appeal and the writ petition, in which an interim was made by the Trial Court and which is the subject matter of this appeal, are now before us. 2. The facts of this case are shortly as follows:- According to the writ petitioners, they placed an order for import of cold formed section from sheets galvanised corrugate from a foreign seller. According to the petitioners, they opened a Letter of Credit for import on 11th January, 1983 and on 11th March 1983 the foreign supplier despatched 1004.710 M.T. of the materials per S.S. Jaltarang. This entire transaction was entered into on the basis of the existing duty. The dispute is regarding the auxiliary duty. Admittedly, at the time of shipment of the materials on 11th March 1983 it was 20% ad valorem. By notification dated 18th March 1983 it was increased from 20% to 25%. Admittedly, the bill of entry was submitted and the ship arrived subsequently. On the 20th May, 1983, that is before the arrival of the sh...
Anil Krishna Pal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal102
ORDERDilip Kumar Basu, J.1. A Coconut Tree, sometimes, becomes source of living of a citizen, but, it sometimes, becomes a subject matter of protracted litigation. Instant writ application is a dispute on a coconut tree and petitioner has come to this Writ Court challenging inaction of South Dam Dam Municipality i.e. respondents 2 and 3 under Sections 449(2)(b), 452, 453, 454 and 455 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, though apparently this petition is directed against the respondents 2 and 3 but for all practical purposes, petitioner is aggrieved against respondents 6 and 7, refusing to remove a coconut tree which was allowed to grow in the lands of respondents 6 and 7 but adjacent to petitioner's boundary walls, causing damage to the building of the petitioner, particularly walls of chilekotha, due to constant dashing by the said coconut tree, endangering life and properties of the neighbours and passers-by members of public.2. Petitioner's contention is that the coconut tree is like...
Biecco Lawrie Sramik Karmachari Union and ors. Vs. Biecco Lawrie Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT26(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition was virtually moved on behalf of Biecco Lawrie Sramik Karmachari Union and three others, for issue of appropriate writ against respondent Company challenging withdrawal and/or discontinuance of an amount of Rs. 90 drawn by the labour force and subordinate staff of Biecco Lawrie Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company), which they were receiving, as part of their attendance bonus since 1983, in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. At the time of admission of the writ petition on June 29, 1987, Sushanta Chatterjee, J, did not grant any interim order, but directed this matter to be disposed of as a 'Contested Application' after 6 weeks.3. Thereafter, the matter came up before me for disposal after completion of the respective affidavits.4. Facts of the instant case are as follows :The petitioner No. 1, Biecco Lawrie Sramik Karmachari Union is a register...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC108
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th January, 1987, passed in Civil Revision case No. 1612(W) of 1978 by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. and whereby the rule which was obtained by M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioners), against Union of India, the respondent appellants in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the said appellants), was made absolute and it was directed that a writ of or writ in nature of mandamus do issue, commanding the said appellants to act and proceed in accordance with law and/or to cancel, rescind and withdraw the impugned trade notice dated 31st August, 1977, the show cause notices dated 20/22nd September, 1977 and 3rd December, 1977 and the demand notices dated 24th November, 1977, 9th December, 1977 and 30th November, 1977 and so also a notice dated 8/10th March, 1978 and further to forbear from giving any effect or further effect or continue to give effect to the notices ...
Dulal Chandra Ojha Vs. Banamali Guchait and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal91
ORDERSusanta Chatterji, J.1. The present revisional application has been filed challenging the order dt. 22-2-87 in Misc. Appeal No. 116 of 1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah, affirming theorderdt. 20-6-86 passed in Misc. Case No. 3585, by the learned Munsif, Uluberia.2. It appears that an application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 24/77 was filed stating the relevant facts. The Misc. Case was dismissed for default on 3-4-82. The learned Munsif dismissed the prayer for restoration considering the background of the case and the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not found to be sufficient as to the absence on the date of hearing. The Misc. appeal was heard by the learned District Judge and the appeal was dismissed on two fold grounds. First, the learned District Judge found that the appeal was not maintainable under Order 43, Rule l(e) of the Civil P.C. Secondly, he dismissed the appeal on merit also.3. I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective part...
Murat Viniyog Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal65,92CWN746,[1989]176ITR89(Cal)
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. In this writ petition a pure question of law has been raised. The question that calls for consideration by the Court is whether in respect of sale of property by execution of a registered document, the confirming party, namely, the respondent 3 who originally entered into an agreementwith the respondents 4 and 5 whereby the respondents 4 and 5 agreed to sell the property either to the respondent 3 or to his nominee, was required to produce an Income-tax Clearance Certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act before the Registrar of Assurance as a condition before the registration of the sale deed by which the owners of the property namely, the Respondents 4 and 5 transferred the property to the petitioner.2. The fact of this case in short is t hat the Respondents 4 and 5 were the owners of the premises No. 15, Raja Santosh Road Calcutta and on 14th Nov. 1986 the Respondents 4 and 5 agreed to sell for valuable consideration the rear portion of...
S.M. Chopra and Sons Vs. Rajendra Prosad Srivastava
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Cal326
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby the application made by the appellant herein in August 1981 under Under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafterreferred to as the Act) was rejected. The case of the appellants as made out before the trial Court was that the appellants were the proprietors of the duly registered trade mark being the mark 'RAJA' being Nos. 144, 388 as of July 11, 1950 in Class 7. According to the appellants long prior to the enactment of any legislation on Trade Marks in India, (he appellants had been manufacturing and marketing rice hullers and spare parts thereof under the trade mark 'RAJA' and the said goods under the said trade mark have acquired considerable popularity in the market. In November 1978 the appellants became aware of the manufacture and sale of rice hullers or parts thereof under the mark 'MAHRAJA'. It appears that the mark...
R.S. Cambray and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bishnu Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Cal400,92CWN903
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. During the hearing of this revision against an order dismissing an application for attachment before judgment under the provisions of Order 38. 'Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a question arose as to whether the impugned order is appealable under the Code. An appeal and a revision, being mutually exclusive, cannot co-exist and a revision cannot lie to this Court where an appeal lies to this Court or to any Court subordinate to this Court, as has now been made expressly clear by Sub-section (2) of Section 115, inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976.2. In this case, on an application being made by the plaintiff under Order 38. Rule 5 for attachment before judgment, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to show causewhy he should not furnish security, but no conditional order of attachment was made under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. And on the defendant showing cause and after hearing the parties, the trial Judge has dismissed this application. Is such an order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›